Being a former football player I think it is a stupid decision to pay athletes. When I played which was not that long ago I had enough money from the school to pay my rent and eat out every once and a while.
I had teammates that would go blow their entire room and board check in the first or second week.
All I'm trying to say is what the university gives the players is enough if you spend it wisely.
(09-26-2013 11:23 AM)UAB?IAB Wrote: [ -> ] (09-26-2013 11:17 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ] (09-26-2013 11:04 AM)UAB?IAB Wrote: [ -> ] (09-26-2013 10:56 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ] (09-26-2013 10:54 AM)BlazerPhil Wrote: [ -> ]How do you seperate Manziel from the 7 guys blocking for him, the 3 trying to catch the ball he threw and the 33 other guys on defense and special teams ? Not including their backups ?
Maybe he meant from outside sources like selling his autographs?
At the very least they could get compensation for their likenesses being used in video games and on ESPN, etc.
I think direct payments from the university are a little over the top, though. What expenses do these guys have? They get their room and board paid for, they are provided meals, they are provided books, they are provided tuition. What else are required expenditures that aren't covered? You don't *have* to have a car. You don't *have* to have a cell phone. Give 'em a laptop, ok, fine. I think every university could probably come up with the funds for that.
So they should stay on campus 24/7, only use landlines, and not have any spending money to have a life? How would you fair under those circumstances, forget about the scholarship? These guys do A LOT more than just show up and play a sport.
Better yet what if your employer never gave you a raise because you make enough to meet your basic needs? But you excel at your job and you have increased revenue significantly for the company.
Then let them get a job elsewhere or let them take out loans and pell grants like everyone else. Pay them for things like using them in video games or TV shows or advertising, but just for showing up and playing football is stupid. The baseball team is never going to get it, but I see them practicing just as much as the football team. Don't people have to pay to be in the band?
If we're going to throw amateurism out the window then we need to disassociate the teams from universities and take away the tax exempt status. If we're going to use the universities to build this crap up to the levels we have, then the money should flow back and help the rest of the student body with reduced tuition.
Come on man, find another job? They were recruited to the university because of the value that they bring to the table. If they choose to leave a school for another they have to sit out a year. If it is about amateurism, then why are coaches making $4,000,000 a year and everyone else associated can make money except for the ones that actually generate the revenue.
Just because you work as hard or harder than another doesn't mean you deserve the same pay, see society.
Coaches salaries are absolutely criminal, nowhere did I ever justify that.
If you go across campus and look at the state of things, the age of computers used by faculty, the physical state of classrooms, the number of books in libraries, the age of buildings...how much of that could be improved with the money being paid to coaches or to build 100,000 seat stadiums, or whatever. Your argument is going to be "without those things that money wouldn't be there"--OK, then disassociate from the university and become a for-profit organization and let it get taxed so the money can be restored to the university through state funding.
These days the big schools are professional sports teams that happen to have an ancillary school attached to the side for the tax benefits. It's like when Delta bought an oil refinery to try to hedge jet fuel prices.
(09-26-2013 11:39 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ] (09-26-2013 11:23 AM)UAB?IAB Wrote: [ -> ] (09-26-2013 11:17 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ] (09-26-2013 11:04 AM)UAB?IAB Wrote: [ -> ] (09-26-2013 10:56 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]Maybe he meant from outside sources like selling his autographs?
At the very least they could get compensation for their likenesses being used in video games and on ESPN, etc.
I think direct payments from the university are a little over the top, though. What expenses do these guys have? They get their room and board paid for, they are provided meals, they are provided books, they are provided tuition. What else are required expenditures that aren't covered? You don't *have* to have a car. You don't *have* to have a cell phone. Give 'em a laptop, ok, fine. I think every university could probably come up with the funds for that.
So they should stay on campus 24/7, only use landlines, and not have any spending money to have a life? How would you fair under those circumstances, forget about the scholarship? These guys do A LOT more than just show up and play a sport.
Better yet what if your employer never gave you a raise because you make enough to meet your basic needs? But you excel at your job and you have increased revenue significantly for the company.
Then let them get a job elsewhere or let them take out loans and pell grants like everyone else. Pay them for things like using them in video games or TV shows or advertising, but just for showing up and playing football is stupid. The baseball team is never going to get it, but I see them practicing just as much as the football team. Don't people have to pay to be in the band?
If we're going to throw amateurism out the window then we need to disassociate the teams from universities and take away the tax exempt status. If we're going to use the universities to build this crap up to the levels we have, then the money should flow back and help the rest of the student body with reduced tuition.
Come on man, find another job? They were recruited to the university because of the value that they bring to the table. If they choose to leave a school for another they have to sit out a year. If it is about amateurism, then why are coaches making $4,000,000 a year and everyone else associated can make money except for the ones that actually generate the revenue.
Just because you work as hard or harder than another doesn't mean you deserve the same pay, see society.
Coaches salaries are absolutely criminal, nowhere did I ever justify that.
If you go across campus and look at the state of things, the age of computers used by faculty, the physical state of classrooms, the number of books in libraries, the age of buildings...how much of that could be improved with the money being paid to coaches or to build 100,000 seat stadiums, or whatever. Your argument is going to be "without those things that money wouldn't be there"--OK, then disassociate from the university and become a for-profit organization and let it get taxed so the money can be restored to the university through state funding.
These days the big schools are professional sports teams that happen to have an ancillary school attached to the side for the tax benefits. It's like when Delta bought an oil refinery to try to hedge jet fuel prices.
I believe we agree more than we disagree. I just believe people should be paid what the market dictates they are worth.
(09-26-2013 11:32 AM)DragonLair Wrote: [ -> ]Being a former football player I think it is a stupid decision to pay athletes. When I played which was not that long ago I had enough money from the school to pay my rent and eat out every once and a while.
I had teammates that would go blow their entire room and board check in the first or second week.
All I'm trying to say is what the university gives the players is enough if you spend it wisely.
I know several current and former athletes that would dispute your position. What applies to one, doesn't apply to all.
I heard on the radio today that Duke coach, David Cutcliff made the ridiculous statement that no one is getting rich off the players. This coming from a coach who is making 1.75 million a year.
I also heard that 61 staff members in the University of Michigan athletic department makes over $100,000 per year.
Pay the players...or at least allow them to do what any other American is allowed to do: make money off of their popularity
In reality, Title IX makes direct payment a virtual impossibility. But, they should still be allowed to profit and it would not cost the schools anything.
(09-26-2013 12:09 PM)Memphis Blazer Wrote: [ -> ]I heard on the radio today that Duke coach, David Cutcliff made the ridiculous statement that no one is getting rich off the players. This coming from a coach who is making 1.75 million a year.
I also heard that 61 staff members in the University of Michigan athletic department makes over $100,000 per year.
Pay the players...or at least allow them to do what any other American is allowed to do: make money off of their popularity
I'm down. Don't give them scholarships, meals, or rooms anymore. Let them pay taxes on their income. Let's see how well that works out.
If you are going to require them to be students, you will have to give them scholarships. The schools can afford it.
I don't see why everyone is against someone being paid for their talent. It's what American ideas are founded on: if you are good at something you are paid according to your talent. Of course some American ideas were founded on slavery as well, so I guess there's that.
This will happen within a few years. Either they will be directly paid, or they will be allowed to earn money. Might as well get on board
(09-26-2013 12:31 PM)Memphis Blazer Wrote: [ -> ]If you are going to require them to students, you will have to give them scholarships. The schools can afford it.
I don't see why everyone is against someone being paid for their talent. It's what American ideas are founded on: if you are good at something you are paid according to your talent. Of course some American ideas were founded on slavery as well, so I guess there's that.
This more like sharecropping. They have a house (shack) and a field to plant. grow, and harvest, so what if the land owner get the majority share of the crop, get paid for the seeds, and require rent for the land. It ain't slavery, wink wink.
I forget the exact number but some boosters paid good money to sit at the same table as Johnny Manziel, all going to aTm, yet Maniel's value is covered by his scholarship... please.
I am open to them getting paid by EA for using their likeness or selling autographs or whatnot. The money coming into the university should go back to the university, not an off the books athletics "foundation" and used like a private business, and I don't think they should get direct payments from the university other than a payment of the excess funds left over in their scholarships like a normal non-athlete would get.
If the student athletes are getting such a raw deal it would seem like they would have a hard time finding enough people to field all these teams, now wouldn't it?
(09-26-2013 12:53 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]I am open to them getting paid by EA for using their likeness or selling autographs or whatnot. The money coming into the university should go back to the university, not an off the books athletics "foundation" and used like a private business, and I don't think they should get direct payments from the university other than a payment of the excess funds left over in their scholarships like a normal non-athlete would get.
Who has said the schools should pay them? The schools, the ncaa, and others shouldn't restrict their ability to generate income either. College football is multi-billion dollar a year industry, built on the backs of the players... period. When do athletes really have time to work a "normal" job?
Interviewer: When are available to work?
Athlete: Let's see I have morning workouts, classes throughout the day, position meetings, practice this evening, media request that I am obligated to attend, followed by study hall, we have an event with the team, Saturday we have a game, Sunday after film session I have a few hours.
The argument about scholarships is... simply put... BS.
(09-26-2013 01:07 PM)Blazer on the southside Wrote: [ -> ]If the student athletes are getting such a raw deal it would seem like they would have a hard time finding enough people to field all these teams, now wouldn't it?
We still have teachers, police, and firefighters, and they complain about pay all the time. So your point is?
(09-26-2013 10:49 AM)UAB?IAB Wrote: [ -> ]Players like Johnny Manziel could generate enough revenue to pay for their entire team's scholarships. Texas A&M got $300,000,000 in additional donations, more than at any point in their history, largely because of JM. But JM is suppose to grateful for a measly scholarship? I don't think so. These kids should be able to generate as much income as they can as long as it's by legal means. Schools can go from irrelevant to relevant based on the performance of student athletes which in turn help the schools out immensely from increased enrollment to an increase in the all important category of revenue.
The ad put out by the NCAA states "Over 300,000 college athletes will 'go pro' after graduation in jobs other than pro sports". The Johnny Manziel type of athlete makes up only a small fraction of that number who will have lucrative sports contracts waiting for them after college. Those whose family incomes make them unable to qualify for the new standards for Pell Grants will probably have to take out student loans in order to have any cash which they will have to pay back out of earnings. Add to that the number who get only fractional scholarships (only books or only tuition) for their sports rather than the full ride common for basketball and football.
(09-26-2013 01:17 PM)UAB?IAB Wrote: [ -> ] (09-26-2013 12:53 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]I am open to them getting paid by EA for using their likeness or selling autographs or whatnot. The money coming into the university should go back to the university, not an off the books athletics "foundation" and used like a private business, and I don't think they should get direct payments from the university other than a payment of the excess funds left over in their scholarships like a normal non-athlete would get.
Who has said the schools should pay them? The schools, the ncaa, and others shouldn't restrict their ability to generate income either. College football is multi-billion dollar a year industry, built on the backs of the players... period. When do athletes really have time to work a "normal" job?
Interviewer: When are available to work?
Athlete: Let's see I have morning workouts, classes throughout the day, position meetings, practice this evening, media request that I am obligated to attend, followed by study hall, we have an event with the team, Saturday we have a game, Sunday after film session I have a few hours.
The argument about scholarships is... simply put... BS.
Where are the direct payments coming from if not from the schools?
And scholarships are not BS. The thousands of kids graduating with crippling debt would tell you that.
(09-26-2013 01:19 PM)UAB?IAB Wrote: [ -> ] (09-26-2013 01:07 PM)Blazer on the southside Wrote: [ -> ]If the student athletes are getting such a raw deal it would seem like they would have a hard time finding enough people to field all these teams, now wouldn't it?
We still have teachers, police, and firefighters, and they complain about pay all the time. So your point is?
My point is that people don't usually line up for a raw deal, so it must not be one. BTW, we all complain about our pay & working conditions.
(09-26-2013 11:56 AM)UAB?IAB Wrote: [ -> ] (09-26-2013 11:32 AM)DragonLair Wrote: [ -> ]Being a former football player I think it is a stupid decision to pay athletes. When I played which was not that long ago I had enough money from the school to pay my rent and eat out every once and a while.
I had teammates that would go blow their entire room and board check in the first or second week.
All I'm trying to say is what the university gives the players is enough if you spend it wisely.
I know several current and former athletes that would dispute your position. What applies to one, doesn't apply to all.
I never said all players are in the same boat. I just said that I knew guys who would blow their money in the first week.
Don't believe every story about starving athletes. Some of the time it is money management or in this case mismanagement.
(09-26-2013 01:43 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote: [ -> ] (09-26-2013 10:49 AM)UAB?IAB Wrote: [ -> ]Players like Johnny Manziel could generate enough revenue to pay for their entire team's scholarships. Texas A&M got $300,000,000 in additional donations, more than at any point in their history, largely because of JM. But JM is suppose to grateful for a measly scholarship? I don't think so. These kids should be able to generate as much income as they can as long as it's by legal means. Schools can go from irrelevant to relevant based on the performance of student athletes which in turn help the schools out immensely from increased enrollment to an increase in the all important category of revenue.
The ad put out by the NCAA states "Over 300,000 college athletes will 'go pro' after graduation in jobs other than pro sports". The Johnny Manziel type of athlete makes up only a small fraction of that number who will have lucrative sports contracts waiting for them after college. Those whose family incomes make them unable to qualify for the new standards for Pell Grants will probably have to take out student loans in order to have any cash which they will have to pay back out of earnings. Add to that the number who get only fractional scholarships (only books or only tuition) for their sports rather than the full ride common for basketball and football.
I only used him as an example but I could name hundreds but my point is just because they are athletes, their earning potential shouldn't be restricted.
If they have no value, or the ceiling is a scholarship, then the universities should drop all sports.
(09-26-2013 01:44 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ] (09-26-2013 01:17 PM)UAB?IAB Wrote: [ -> ] (09-26-2013 12:53 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]I am open to them getting paid by EA for using their likeness or selling autographs or whatnot. The money coming into the university should go back to the university, not an off the books athletics "foundation" and used like a private business, and I don't think they should get direct payments from the university other than a payment of the excess funds left over in their scholarships like a normal non-athlete would get.
Who has said the schools should pay them? The schools, the ncaa, and others shouldn't restrict their ability to generate income either. College football is multi-billion dollar a year industry, built on the backs of the players... period. When do athletes really have time to work a "normal" job?
Interviewer: When are available to work?
Athlete: Let's see I have morning workouts, classes throughout the day, position meetings, practice this evening, media request that I am obligated to attend, followed by study hall, we have an event with the team, Saturday we have a game, Sunday after film session I have a few hours.
The argument about scholarships is... simply put... BS.
Where are the direct payments coming from if not from the schools?
And scholarships are not BS. The thousands of kids graduating with crippling debt would tell you that.
I said the scholarship argument is bs, not the scholarship itself, it has value, it's just not as valuable compared to the value that athletes bring to a school.